Access to Specialist Care in Rural Saskatchewan: The Saskatchewan Rural Health Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of place has emerged as an important factor in determining people's health experiences. Rural populations experience an excess in mortality and morbidity compared to those in urban settings. One of the factors thought to contribute to this rural-urban health disparity is access to healthcare. The objective of this analysis was to examine access to specialized medical care services and several possible determinants of access to services in a distinctly rural population in Canada. In winter 2010, we conducted a baseline mail survey of 11,982 households located in rural Saskatchewan, Canada. We obtained 4620 completed household surveys. A key informant for each household responded to questions about access to medical specialists and the exact distance traveled to these services. Correlates of interest included the location of the residence within the province and within each household, socioeconomic status, household smoking status, median age of household residents, number of non-respiratory chronic conditions and number of current respiratory conditions. Analyses were conducted using log binomial regression for the outcome of interest. The overall response rate was 52%. Of households who required a visit to a medical specialist in the past 12 months, 23% reported having difficulty accessing specialist care. The magnitude of risk for encountering difficulty accessing medical specialist care services increased with the greatest distance categories. Accessing specialist care professionals by rural residents was particularly difficult for persons with current respiratory conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it